Daniel Foreman

Ok lets simplify this because frankly I'm not following either of you. In practical terms, if we could (and I know we cant) accelerate a body of mass up to near light speed say 99% then it would take a little over 4.22 years for the mass to arrive at Alpha Centuari from the perspective of the depature point (earth) and the arrival point (alpha). That body of mass however, would age at a slower rate, so from it's internal perspective it would be a matter of weeks or months old rather than a year older? Does this accurately reflect the nature of time dilation?

Hi guys, Another question I'm afraid. Now obviously gravity is one of natures mysteries we don't understand it, and can't magically generate it's effects. What I'm interested in centrifugal force and simulating gravity using that. From what I understand however, the size of the rotating section is quite important. If you have a small spinning ring, then the force at a persons head will be less then the force experienced at their feet. Making hard to move and disorientating. What radius would a ring need to be to provide the feeling on earth gravity while avoiding the sensation of different levels at different heights of your body from the outer ring? At what point would it feel close enough to gravity to behave like gravity so that it is easy to move? Or does the technique never allow easy movement under any circumstance?

So, if my understanding is correct now. It is personal time for the traveler that is affected, that is time as it appears to the traveler. So no more than 4.22 years can pass in the real universe, while at the same time from the travelers point of view it will take approximately 0.074 years (approx 27 days). Is that right?

From what I understand Gravity is a unique force in the universe. The four primary forces are: Gravity Electromagnatisam Small Nuclear Force Large Nuclear Force Gravity is the property of large bodies of mass attracting one another. Reversing this process is pure science fiction.There are claims on the internet of "anti-gravity" devices. But in reality, if you mean to beat gravity the only method of doing this is thrust. There's some cool devices demonstrating that if you wrap copper around a big enough metal circle you can make it fly. Some claim this is anti-gravity. But the reality is it's merely sucking air in from the top and blowing it out the bottom. All reactions required to beat gravity require this basic concept. All forms of gravity beating propulsion require some way of accelerating matter through the rear of the object.

Hi, I may have a complete misunderstanding of this topic, so I apologize in advance if I sound like a complete idiot misunderstanding the subject matter. So here's my question. The idea as I understand it is, that if a space ship moves at, or very near the speed of light for 1 light year then everyone on earth ages at a much faster rate. I found an online calculator at http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993which states that (if I used it correctly) that if you travel for 1 year at the speed of light, then 57.2 years will have passed on earth. This makes no sense to me because to achieve this effect you must be moving a person at the speed of light. We know that to travel 1 light year at the speed of light, from the observers point of view (earth) it takes 1 year. Why, when you add time dilation to the mix does it actually take 57.2 years from earths point of view. Surely you are no longer traveling at the speed of light then, but instead at 1/57th the speed of light? This seems counter intuitive to me which probably means I don't understand the concept properly. From my point of view, if you fly to Alpha Centauri at a distance of 4.22 light years then from earths point of view, you will arrive 4.22 years later. Yet with time dilation in the mix it will take from earths point of view 241.384 years. So therefore, from earths point of view you are not traveling at the speed of light, instead you are traveling much slower than the speed of light. My question as well, is does the same amount of time 241.384 years pass for Alpha Centauri as well? Sorry this all seems counter intuitive to me.

What exactly constitutes an actual scientist? It wouldn't be say... or Or perhaps you really mean, you have a job that involves science. So "real scientists" only count if they are paid? Or perhaps a real scientist to you, is someone with a PhD, or some other kind of degree? So Swansont? What exactl is a "real scientist" to you?

Is that passive aggressive talk for "shut up I'm a mod?" lol

All theoretical science is speculation with little or not real world evidence, so the next time someone discusses time, black holes, gravity, you'd better be sure to move those as well.

TrappedLight it started out as a speculation, evolved into speculation, continued as speculation and finally became, the speculation we know and love today. If you think there are any absolutes in the theoretical, then you'd better have a damned good experiment in mind to prove it.

I don't see why? This isn't the dark ages, I'm allowed to question conventional wisdom if it doesn't make sense to me. In fact it's only through the act of questioning that you come to understand anything. What has more value? Something you repeat out of a book, or from a conversation, or something you think hard about, question and test. If something yields practical results I won't go against it. I wouldn't for example tell you that "no I don't think electrons flow, and that silicon could be the basis of chips." because frankly I'm sitting in front of a computer lol. But when we deal with theoretical issues like the nature of the HIGGS field, how the universe started, if time exists and whether or not swiss cheese could ever be used to produce a kind of elephant (ok maybe not that last one), there are no clear cut answers. These fields benefit from ideas, unless perhaps they are about cheese, or perhaps the cheese question will turn out to be the key to unlocking he secrets of creation. But can it define a universe without the beginning of motion. We accept that the universe is flying apart as a big bunch of galaxies, it would make sense of they were all generated from a single point, and yet at the same time it wouldn't. The problem with that thinking is "where did the mass come from" at which point we have to ask outselves what it outside the universe? Is the universe everything? Is it one of many universes? And how could we possibly find out? The way I see it we nee to: A) Find the edge of the universe, the point where space just stops being space, a place where matter can not go. B) Discover a proto-photon that can exist outside our space, interact with anything else like other universes or something entirely different and then return to this universe in some kind of measurable way. Or alternatively. Identify and directly ask the creator of everything, if in fact it was created by anything other than chaos. Which leads me to another amusing quote from Terry Pratchett "Chaos always wins in the end, because it's better organised."

I rarely bother with the mainstream, it's usually full of people who took someone elses word for it, or at least didn't have a great deal of time to test and verify. The more I look into it, the more I see that the only evidence for it lays in theoretical mathematics without achievable experiments. If someone demonstrates an honest to god working time machine then, hey. I was wrong! But evidence like GPS Time dilation lays, at least i my mind, with the reduction of motion within a moving or state changing mass, rather than time itself actually changing. Honestly until time becomes as observable and testable as space itself I'm not willing to accept it as an honest to god working dimension and shall thus treat it as nothing more than a mathematical tool designed to index prior events and possible future predictions..

And sadly this has lead to the-guy-on-the-street into thinking time actually is a dimension. A great example of science fiction taking more meaning to Joe Average than Science Fact.

Indeed, I see no evidence that suggests time is a dimension of any kind. We can easily test whether or not space is a dimension of course, we are physically built to interact with, and interpret it. Just throw a ball and watch it move through three planes, X, Y and Z. We have a nice neat little co-ordinate system that easily represents 3D space on 2D surfaces (computer screens, paper, etc) and because of the way we are built we can look at 2D surfaces and convert it in our minds into a 3D presentation. Heck, bend light at a different angle towards the left and right eye and we've got a lovely pseudo 3D effect that only makes 33% of us vomit into our pop-corn bucket . So given the ease in which we work with standard spatial dimensions, how can we then raise time to the same lofty position? We can not see it, nor can we interact with it. We can not slow time down, nor can we speed it up. I know it feels different, When standing in a queue minutes crawl by, when swept away with a lover hours pass by like seconds. But this is a human perceptual error, and can easily be refuted by a clock. Make one person stand in a queue for 5 hours, and give another person something they simply love doing for the same period of time, put a clock between them and despite their different opinions the clock itself will be completely ineffective. Next, if we are to define time as a whole dimension, at least in the same sense of space, then we must be able to freely travel up and down it at will. I can move freely within a single spacial dimension. I can not freely move up and down time. I can no more speak to my younger self and give him the lottery numbers, than I can visit my older self to see what I die of, and how I can prevent it. I am controlled by the ever rolling now. My concept of past (memories) is only offset by my lack of future knowledge. My favourite author sums up time with a race called the Trolls. The trolls have the unique idea that they "are walking through time backwards" the reasoning being, that they can see the past, but they have their backs to the future. (Sir Terry Pratchett). I've mentioned this to a few people and they gone "Oh yeah, I can see that." and why not it fits in with what we observe so easily. Who knows there might even be a few people around forming a religion around it as I type. But consider what we are actually "seeing". How many times have your memories been wrong, how many of your childhood memories have been created through the power of suggestion and imagination as much as real life events. Have you ever been told something, not remember it, then come back a week later with a self constructed memory? A suggestive memory? More extreme cases show lack of memory at all. What happens to the "past" if you can't remember it? What happens to the past if two people who lived through the same moment in time remember it differently? If this level of imperfect memory exists, then it's reasonable to conclude that we're not "seeing" the past at all, but we are instead bags of meat who's file keeping abilities are rather less than that of typical PC Hard Drive. And of course we can not "see" the future at all. No one outside an insane asylum (or a rather profitable mystic meg franchise) can claim to directly see the future. I don't know about you guys but if I could I'd be checking out next weeks lottery jackpot. Those that claim they do always put massive limitations to the skill, so that when you ask them what the lottery numbers are, they have an escape route to save face. So the only aspect of time that exists, that is has a physical on-going presence in the universe is the here and now. So if there is no physical divide between, the past, the present, and the future, which is the summary of times purpose. Then Time as it is commonly accepted can not exist. Having said that, within the realm of mathematics, time is a rather accurate way of "documenting events" that is if we record data on anything, be it world history, of the path of a photon through space over a period, then comparing data sets is very useful and very important. Heck we can even claim to see the future, well ok not see. But at least have a damn good guess at it based on previous experience behaviour, of course any such prediction remains theoretical right up until that event happens. But just because we've created a useful conceptual tool. An index system for events if you like, that doesn't mean it has a physical existence within the universe.

I'd love to see where he says that, do you have a source for it?

Information is a human concept. I find it doubtful that the universe is made up of bits. It ain't no computer after all.

I've been reading up on virtual photons, the experimental evidence for it deriving from the Lamb shift experiment, and the Casimir effect. (I can't find any other experimental evidence). We know that gravity can affect matter over massive distences. So I can accept that space could be the result of forces interacting with each other un a way we don't understand yet. But again I think virtual particles is an over complicated answer to an experiment (the lamb shift) that simply didn't work in the way it was predicted to. How are these particles created? Why are they tempoary? If empty space is filled with them why don't they interact with photons in the same way normal particles do? It appears to be yet another thing we can't actually observe directly being treated as the answer to something. Again, sorry to sound like a broken record but I'm not convinced.

Indeed, and thus we return to this idea of time being nothing more than a test of comparative motion. It seems much simpler to retain time as something used to map previous and future predictions rather than promote it to an active element of the universe. Thus what we perceive as time is mere active motion from moment to moment. By the same rule of simplicity I'm inclined to treat space as, well space. I'm not convinced that space is a function of matter as the Einstein quotation might suggest. I can accept that gravity is a function of matter as we have many examples demonstrating how large groups of matter draw themselves to each other. I can accept time is a function of matter, providing that time definition is based on motion at which point we are merely comparing different rates of motion. I can also accept that electromagnetism, nuclear forces are also a function of matter. But space seems blatantly different from matter to me. It is to my mind, the one other thing in the universe we can observe (albeit it by shooting photons through it) is the emptiness between matter.

I am very suspicious of this experiment. I can accept that two uncharged conductive plates when suspended in a vacuum draw themselves to each other. This doesn't prove that a vacuum is made up of matter. It just proves that when you introduce matter into a vacuum they are drawn to each other. So what? Atoms repell and pull on each other, how does this proves that the space between them is made up of matter. Therefore logically space can not be made up of matter, and since it exists, space must have an independent existence from matter.

As I understand the Casimir effect, two conducting parallel uncharged plates attract each other in a vacuum. On this I make the following suggestions. 1) First of all, by introducing those plates we've introduced contamination to a vacuum. 2) Secondly the plates are very close to together, because the effect drops off at range. 3) If gravity is a natural function of matter, they why wouldn't electromagnetic be a natural function as well, what about the nuclear forces as well? The theory appears to go into some complexities about virtual photons, and say that light pressure is the reason for the attractions and that this is the evidence that proves a vacuum is never empty of matter. To which I point out the following very obvious observations I've made. 1) Matter "clumps" together. This is a fact, due to the forces that influence matter ( and if we take Einstein's premise that gravity isn't separate from matter as true ) we get different levels of clumping on all scales. Quarks, gluons, photons and electrons, groups of atoms clump, cells clump, dirt clumps, planets clump, stars clump, galaxies clump, etc etc. So given that we see two large peices of metal being drawn to each other, can we really be surprised? Also has this experiment been done in completely shielded environments? They specify that it must be "uncharged, conductive plates" there's a heck of a lot of radio wave energy on earth, given the surface area of the plates I don't see it as impossible that they might be picking up a charge from radiowaves and thus producing a weak magnetic pull on each other.

I may be taking this quote out of context, however doesn't this summarise what I've been saying? Gravity is a function of matter, and time is a function of matter. Now most people think of time as past, present future. So personally I would substitute the word time for motion because motion doesn't carry this baggage. Having said that I disagree with his statement about space not having a separate existence from matter. The fact that Vacuum environments exist, which are devoid of matter tells me that space is not dependant upon the presence of matter. Even at the subatomic level space separates atoms, quarks, etc. As for those who devalue the idea of philosophy in scientific methodology I refer you to the following quote.

I've had a few private messages agreeing with me. So yes, but I never started this thread expecting to reach a consensus on the matter. Until there is definitive proof one way or another (which there can never be if time doesn't exist, because you can not prove that something doesn't exist) this discussion will remain unresolved. That's the problem with discussing anything without verifiable, testable evidence.

I spend most of my life going through technical blogs it seems. It isn't common practice to sign posts made to a blog system. No, in the context of "So really, enough of this nonsense on whether time exists or not, or if it is real or not." then Zz can easily be interpreted in the way I have. Especially when blog posts place a large Posted by ZapperZ at 8:03 AM message after every post, which surely the guy must have noticed. So no, this is obvious at all.

It's not a desire, it's a perception. I 100% understand why time exists as a tool, it's a damned useful one. I use it daily when calculating CPU cycles, screen refresh rates, how to interpolate the path of an object between two points. I don't particularly want time not to exist, if someone really does prove it outside a mathematical equation I'll be ecstatic about it! It would be another facet of the universe we can finally begin to understand properly. But, as I read, and talk to people, one theme repeatedly re-appears, that they all treat time as a foregone proven conclusion that is as real to them as the space they walk in. When I watch lectures on physics, and videos on how black holes would bend light, and play around with time itself as if it were some kind of rubber sheet. I get the ever distressing sense that the vast majority of people simply accept that time exists and don't really question what it is they are actually accepting. So, I challenged myself, and asked. What if time doesn't exist? What if time can be explained by something so common, so every day that hardly anyone pays any attention to it? Over the years this idea has evolved, and as if evolved in my mind, be it right or wrong, my perception on the subject has shifted. Will you see me using a stop-watch to compare the relative speed of two runners over a fixed distance? You sure will! Will you see me treating things like distance, time, and mathematics as part of the actual universe? No! Why? Because I think it's incredibly important not to merge them both into the same thing. Once you do the boundary between thought and experience potentially blurs, and people start treating one like the other. What a conceited blog post. First the author says there is no question that time exists. Then he goes on to say the only argument lay in what times nature is. I mean for pity's sake, how can you produce an experiment that proves time if you don't even know what you're trying to prove? Worse still the author basically finishes by saying the subject is boring him to sleep. I mean for pittys sake, why the hell make a blog post then? It makes me wonder if swan even read it.

I can understand that. To achieve results naturally you need to draw conclusions and then build upon them to get practical rules. I'm not bound to this however, at the same time, I do not contribute to it either. I simply question, and question. michel123456 is, as were several others. It sounds like be both agree that time is a tool to be used in the greater tool kit mankind has invented. If this is your position, then I applaud it. I would disagree with that, in so far that we know we can move in X Y and Z, or Width, breadth, and height, or right, left, up, down, forward, backwards. It is clearly visible to us that there are three modes of movement, so our expression of this has naturally evolved, so what we're observing actually fits what we've created. Of course these words, as with everything in the English language and the mathematical language, are mere expressions of how we think about this. The only reason I don't treat time the same is that I can not observe the past or future. But I can at any instant observe multiple objects taking up multiple positions in space across all three expressions. Please read the previous quote and reply in this post. Btw, I also observe that the sky is blue at this given moment, would you care to try and explain to me that it is in fact red?

No it can't. Distance as a calculation can not exist without time as a reference. When playing with pure mathematics, which is used to describe an objects behaviour in the past or predict it's placement in the future, then both time and their relative positions in space at any given moment is very important. This however is a human conceptual device. It is absolutely not the real thing, simply how we chose to evaluate the real thing. At the moment of motion, all that matters to an object are the forces applied to it, and the forces applied against it. These govern it's motion from moment to moment. Add energy to one side, and it will travelled faster in the direction the energy was applied. It's that simple. The fact that the object can move within X Y and Z within the limits of energy and mass, is all that's needed to demonstrate how space functions. This doesn't demonstrate that you can not go back on yourself in space. Relative to the earth, if I push a pencil forward and back again, then it has travelled forwards and backwards long that axis. Or at least it seems to have. What is very interesting is that, even sitting still and doing nothing you are still continuously moving at absolutely amazing speeds through space. While sitting still you are dragged along with the planets rotation, and you are dragged along by it's orbit relative to the sun, the sun is dragged along in relation to the galaxy, and the galaxy as far as scientists can tell, is flying away from the origin point of the big bang. Now if you want to say that it is the property of dimensional space that it must always fly forward, then this is the evidence you want to be quoting. For this galaxy is not just flying away from the big bang origin point, but as far as scientists can tell our galaxy is accelerating. This idea has always interested me, simply because at first glance I'd have assumed something as accumulatively gravity dense as a galaxy would basically attract other galaxies, which would then either collide, or form an orbit around a particularly large and dense galaxy. However this doesn't appear to happen. In fact galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other, and I say accelerating because it's not at an even rate that you might expect from an initial explosion as the name "big bang" suggests. So relative to the origin point of the universe, which we assume we are flying away from, we are moving at ludicrous speeds. From moment to moment in reference to the whole of the spatial framework, we can never go back on ourselves, all we can do is slow down or speed up as we orbit around are relative points. Sun around the middle of the galaxy, earth around the sun, us around the earth. Now if you wanted to say that any given spatial dimension has a property that causes matter within it's domain to always move forward unceasingly, and that this observation can also be applied to time. I might lend it some credence for the evidence of time. However I would ask questions at this point. 1) When the big bang happened, did the explosion fly off in all directions, or did everything fly off in one direction more or less? 2) Did space itself actually originate at the big bang point, that is, is it something that's expanding as well as the matter within it's domain. 3) If space is expanding, then what is it "expanding in"? 4) Is there some kind of "super space" that allows expansion? 5) Is space evenly distributed? 6) Is space a stand-a-lone framework that doesn't require anything to expand in? 7) Is space infinite, will it continue to grow forever, or is there a point where it's spread so thin that space will simply cease to work? 8) Are these even the right questions to be asking? These are the kinds of greater questions that interest me, and if it turns out that the nature of space is radial, that what we take as X Y and Z needs to be expressed differently, and if it turns out that it is space itself that provides an unceasing onwards into eternity, and that the speed of a dimensions expansion can never be reversed. Then if all this come to be proven somehow I would be prepared to reconsider my position on time. But, as far as I can see, with my relative position to earth and my small sphere of influence, stuff just moves, and space is consistent. If space is consistent and doesn't force us along with it, which I assume it is based on my own observations, then there is no need for time outside the mathematical concept.